Bukhari 3157

Bukhari related, through the report of Ibn Uyayna, from Amr, from Mujala, who did not hear from Umar directly but rather took it from his book. This serves as evidence for accepting narration through written correspondence and narration through authorization.Bashir bin Amr and Abbad al-Bayri narrated it from Mujala as a stopped report, as Dawud stated, from Bashir bin Umar and Abbad.

The Hafiz [Ibn Hajar] said in Fath al-Bari, page 69, explaining his statement, "Umar had not taken jizya from the Zoroastrians until Abdul-Rahman bin Awf testified..."I say, if this is part of Umar's letter, then it is a connected chain, and it would contain a narration of Umar from Abdul-Rahman bin Awf. This is made explicit in the narration of Tirmidhi, whose wording is, "Then Umar's letter came to us, saying, 'Look at the Zoroastrians under your authority and take jizya from them, for Abdul-Rahman bin Awf informed me...'" and so on.However, the compilers of works on hadith chains (Atraf) listed this hadith under the biography of Bajala, from Abdul-Rahman bin Awf, and this is not correct.

I say, people accepted the narration of Abdul-Rahman and set aside the narration of Ibn Abbas because Ibn Abbas's narration comes from a Zoroastrian, and it is therefore unacceptable, since among the conditions for a narration are being Muslim and being upright. And Allah knows best.